US options against haqqani network in Pakistan

[RazorMC]

Their foreign policy is worse? Do you know where the oil from Iraq is going and who owns it now.

Do you really think US wanted to end this war too soon. It made the region unstable for a decade denying China to access Afghanistan's resources. Also gave them the reason to be present in Arabian sea and control of Strait of Homuraz by making their terms bad with Iran.

Don't you see the bigger picture. If they can't have something, they don't want other to have it.

Foreign policy of US is made considering decades and mostly remains unchanged even by the govt., whereas your changes in few months or years depending on type of leaders you have.

They may have denied China access to what it wanted, but for how long and at what cost? I was in the GCC at the time of the Iraq war and honestly more people sympathized with Iraqis despite a certain dislike for Saddam. US intervention seems to be interference to a growing number of people.

Increasing levels of education and access to information is the reason why a rising number of people find hegemonic designs unacceptable, whether the designs have American or Iranian origins.

The US may find fewer friends here while China's non-invasive policies are starting to pay-off.

American sanctions will force Iran to grant even more concessions to nations interested in working with Iran (aka resources and mining). China seems poised to take advantage of this at the expense of the US.

 

[bouncing betty]

...American sanctions will force Iran to grant even more concessions to nations interested in working with Iran (aka resources and mining). China seems poised to take advantage of this at the expense of the US.

The U.S. never got oil or anything else from Iran in the first place, so we CAN'T lose what never was. China is a repressive regime who's true colors will ALWAYS show through. It cracks me up when I see people touting the 'goodness' of countries like Russia and China.

But back on topic to the Haqannis. Why can't (or won't, more precisely) Pakistan take care of these guys ?

 

[CENTCOM]

US's biggest complaint against Pakistan is that it provides safe havens to Haqqanis. It would be fine if Pakistan did not think they were terrorists and stated that openly. But Pakistan claims to be a NATO ally. In that capacity, it is Pakistan’s duty to take action against Haqqanis and Afghan Taliban. It is this running with Haqqani hare and hunting with NATO hound policy of Pakistan that is seen as duplicitous by the whole world.

Dear Ashesh,

Terrorist organizations like the TTP and the Haqqani network have been on a mission to destabilize the region with their acts of terror. The series of attacks committed by these terrorist organizations leave very little to ponder regarding their evil motives. The U.S. and Pakistan are both well aware of the threat these terrorist organizations pose to the region. Pakistan's new intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Muhammad Zahirul Islam, met with top U.S. officials this past week; according to a U.S. official, “Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to work together to counter the terrorist presence in the region that threatens both US and Pakistani national security." We certainly see this meeting as a positive development in regards to addressing our shared concerns.

There is no doubt that we have asked Pakistan to go after the elements responsible for working against our efforts to bring peace to region. But that does not mean we underestimate or undervalue Pakistan’s sacrifices in the WOT. The U.S. and Pakistan have both made a lot of sacrifices in this decade-long WOT. Our relationship has also seen its fair share of ups and down. The focus at the moment is on creating a healthy partnership that will enable us to work effectively against our common enemies.

LTC Taylor,
DET, United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

 

[Rafi]

Dear Ashesh,

Terrorist organizations like the TTP and the Haqqani network have been on a mission to destabilize the region with their acts of terror. The series of attacks committed by these terrorist organizations leave very little to ponder regarding their evil motives. The U.S. and Pakistan are both well aware of the threat these terrorist organizations pose to the region. Pakistan's new intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Muhammad Zahirul Islam, met with top U.S. officials this past week; according to a U.S. official, “Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to work together to counter the terrorist presence in the region that threatens both US and Pakistani national security." We certainly see this meeting as a positive development in regards to addressing our shared concerns.

There is no doubt that we have asked Pakistan to go after the elements responsible for working against our efforts to bring peace to region. But that does not mean we underestimate or undervalue Pakistan’s sacrifices in the WOT. The U.S. and Pakistan have both made a lot of sacrifices in this decade-long WOT. Our relationship has also seen its fair share of ups and down. The focus at the moment is on creating a healthy partnership that will enable us to work effectively against our common enemies.

LTC Taylor,
DET, United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

We consider the Haqqani's part of the problem, and will deal with them when we have the capacity.

 

[RazorMC]

The U.S. never got oil or anything else from Iran in the first place, so we CAN'T lose what never was. China is a repressive regime who's true colors will ALWAYS show through. It cracks me up when I see people touting the 'goodness' of countries like Russia and China.

But back on topic to the Haqannis. Why can't (or won't, more precisely) Pakistan take care of these guys ?*

Where did I say the US is getting oil from Iran??

And there's no question of Chinese or Russian "goodness" as you claimed. There isn't any. Chinese policy has been a mix of patience, ruthlessness and shrewd decision-making. So no need to "crack up".

*Plus your last statement can be redesigned:
"But back on topic to the TTP safe-havens in Afghanistan. Why can't (or won't, more precisely) ISAF take care of these guys ?"

It works both ways

 

[Ali.009]

Stupid article. US can't do shyte, they cudn't do shyte when their supplies were blocked and the soldiers were waiting for their diapers and these 2 penny publishers would have no guts to write such article if their supplies were still blocked! There is no Haqqani netowrk in Pakistan, its all in the minds of American failed generals who are all part-time novel writers and masters of story creation. They have brought thousands of under-paid and under educated kids to Afghanistan getting them killed every day, and now all they can do is to put blame on Pakistan, there is no peace in Afghanistan after a decade of American presence. American military history speaks for itself, failure at every front.

Oh and becky betty, you'r just pissed because your gf is dating your best friend back home =D

 

[Viper0011.]

Did you ever wonder why the F are you 8000 miles away from home ?

Why can't you and your types learn to live in their own houses ?

Why do you poke your nose in every country, install governments, steal resources ?

PS: Those were just rhetorical questions, I don't seriously expect you to figure this out.

I see your point. Knowing the region and area, I could see where everyone made a mistake. BUT, here's what's going on now (just being objective):

1) The talibans and their different groups are actually a bigger threat to Pakistan than they are to ISAF and others. Imagine how many Pakistanis have been killed in bomb blasts and other terrorist attacks within the country?? (and no, CIA is not doing so. The sunni-shea, mqm-anp tensions existed way before the Americans felt 911 and the painful loss of CIVILIAN human life).

Violence alone undermines security, creates panic in the world knowing Pakistan has nukes and more than anything, stops growth within Pakistan.

No one would try to invest into Pakistan due to safety reasons. Heck, I even know Pakistanis who are scared of visiting their own country due to security concerns.

2) Having these taliban groups ruling the tribal belt...no effort from the USA or even from Pakistan will succeed in bringing education, more tolerance, industry, etc to the area.

Because these religious fanatics get their kids involved in a fiasco of cultural norms and wrong version of Islam at an early age. Resulting in the strong headed, 'I know all Islam' mentality (which is incorrect).

If you just look around, there is Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE (countries where Americans go and work, retire and take vacation trips). And US enjoys good relationships with. If this was the US vs. Islam, then why would US be friends with these countries? Muslims in countries defined above are moderate, they practice their religion and go about their daily lives. They don't kill each other, attack other groups due to their differences and shed blood in the name of Allah....in fact, its in Islam that anyone who murders a person, murders the whole humanity. And that killing another human being is forbidden unless you are in a combat. When was the US in combat with talibans on 911?

Over the decades, the US has supported Pakistan many times. Yes, there were mistakes made and that's part of any relationship. But the fact of the matter is that all that is part of the history now. The question that people have is, how to move forward and form a relationship that works?? For that to happen, the people of Pakistan NEED to respect each other, create tolerance, end the gang culture / religious sects. Let there be some tolerance towards others.

That brings about mutual respect and lowers the fundamentalism and threshold for violence. People also need to REMOVE corrupt leaders. America has provided SOOOO much money over the decades but yet, common Pakistani considers it an enemy. The fact is that the money provided was for Pakistan and its people. The corrupt politicians never let it out to the public. How's that America's fault??

I think instead of criticizing the US or anyone, Pakistanis need to get up and move towards the other end of the spectrum, where humanity is respected and tolerated. With that, the violence that happens on daily basis will start to fade away. The US and other big countries would love to invest into Pakistan and then a new world may begin. But Pakistanis need to change their ways there.
It's my opinion that people adapt to the situation. It seems as Pakistan's doing the opposite. I think this is a defining time for Pakistanis to understand that there is a bigger issue within their society and that there are 200 million of Pakistanis who could REALLY be enjoying a much better lifestyle if the fundamentalism and corruption is taken out of the equation. I know that Pakistanis are very smart. But use the smartness for a positive change that'll make people want to go visit Pakistan, not avoid it. The northern parts used to be a tourist destination for people from the US, UK, etc. Now even Pakistanis avoid going there......that's not really America's fault....it's an internal Pakistani issue but it's impacting the whole country and its image in the global standing. So it should be a national priority to fix these things and become more moderate.

It is also my personal belief that the US wants to work with Pakistan. Election time or not, there is a will to help Pakistan towards growth. The real question is, are the Pakistanis willing to accept and to start taking a closer look at the society and to fix things that others may perceive dangerous? I understand the drone issues are hot and innocent civilians get killed in operations too.....BUT its also in Pakistani media that the majority of the people killed in those attacks were 'foreigners' like Uzbks, Tajiks, Arabs or even Pakistanis or Afghani militants. So that tells me that there is some benefit to those.
This brings up another VERY SERIOUS question.....WHY the US has to do what Pakistan should be doing automatically? Pakistan is in danger by these people who haven't, don't want to and will never let the country succeed in modern science and technology and religious moderation. So Pakistanis should, as a nation be together to combat it. They should ask the US for help. Not push things to a point where US has to consider unilateral action or drone attacks..... it seems as people in Pakistan either don't want to fix the issue or are oblivious to the danger it poses, first to Pakistan and THEN to anyone else. I think there should be broader cooperation between Pakistan and the US to fix these issues, starting from cleaning up the mess to setting up educational institutions and then creating industry, thus reducing the whole element of fundamentalism by increasing educational and economic activity. Again, this needs to happen from within Pakistan and the US and all other rich countries will contribute to it.

These are the things that sovereign countries do. There are 200 million people's future on stake so there should be a national focus on making Pakistan a better and safer place by 2015!!

This post wasn't created to bash Pakistan. This is really constructive criticism so please don't take it negatively. Try to understand the reality behind issues. I may be wrong in a few things and for which, my apologies in advance.

 

[ziaulislam]

the issue regarding haqqani netwrok is matter of capcity rather than will..
it has to be noted that deploying troops and conducting operation requires huge amount of money and equipment WHILE KEEPING A DETERRENCE on kashmir side..

if USA wants an operation it has to provide equipment, funding and more importantly lobbying to decrease troops at kasmir end..

simply providing 5-8 billion dollars over a span of 12 years isnt enough to maintain 100,000 troops and conduct operations when USA has spent over a trillion dollars with similar or even worse results than Pakistan

remeber that this amount also contain civilian AID and military equipment..USA has spent over a 100 billion dollars in civilian AID in afghn with little or no results at all....

 

[Hulk]

Getting Pakistan to act against Haqqani is something that US has not been very successful in getting done. I am not very positive about things being changing in future.

 

[Chanda Khan]

Getting Pakistan to act against Haqqani is something that US has not been very successful in getting done. I am not very positive about things being changing in future.

Don't worry; Pakistan will do what it has to do in her best interest.

Be positive man; the future will be good when Pakistan will undertake the operation as per its own time frame and priorities.

 

[blain2]

Way too much is being made of the Haqqanis by the US side. The reality is that the Haqqanis can be influenced. Yet the Americans cannot win just by having Pakistan start a war with the Haqqanis. A very insightful read below on what should be realistically possible for both sides without expecting too much of Pakistan.

The two North Waziristans
From the Newspaper | Cyril Almeida | 19th August, 2012
25

SUDDENLY, everyone’s got an opinion on North Waziristan.

But what the experts say and what they mean and what reality is are often very different things. Separating spin from substance has never been more difficult.

At least in the media, the Glocs-cum-apology deal reinvigorated the will-they, won’t-they debate on NWA: will the army rumble into action in NWA or won’t it?

Then the ISI chief’s DC visit turbocharged the debate, as both the American and Pakistan sides started leaking furiously.

The initial mistake — now slowly being clarified — is that everyone assumed there is one North Waziristan. But in this debate there are actually two North Waziristans: Miranshah and Mir Ali.

Loosely, Miranshah represents the American fixation: the Haqqanis. Mir Ali represents the Pakistani focus: the Pakistan-centric militants.

As ever, neither the American nor the Pakistani side is entirely truthful about what they want and why.

Start with the Americans. The story the Americans like to tell is of the Haqqanis as the devil incarnate. Much will improve in Afghanistan if Pakistan did something about the Haqqani sanctuaries in NWA, according to this tale.

The Americans aren’t asking for the Haqqanis to be destroyed, just for them to be ‘squeezed’. This to them means three things:
slow the flow of funds to the Haqqanis; cut the information lines that keep the Haqqanis one step ahead of the Americans; and do something about Miranhah, the spiritual home and nerve centre of the Haqqanis as far as the Americans are concerned.

The why, as it’s told, is rooted in two reasons. The Haqqanis aren’t responsible for many attacks in Afghanistan but the ones they are responsible for are disproportionately high-impact. Haqqani attacks grab headlines, undermine the war effort and further erode the sliver of political support for the war in the US.

The other reason is the post-9/11 mindset: attack US interests viciously and spectacularly and the hammer needs to be brought down.

The truth, hard as it is for the Americans to swallow, is that those reasons aren’t good enough for the Pakistan Army.

Within the framework of the security paradigm the army here follows — setting aside whether that paradigm is genuinely in Pakistan’s national interest or not — the American reasons for squeezing the Haqqanis don’t make sense. For there is an alternative: the Haqqanis can be dealt with on the Afghan side, if the Americans are willing to accept the existence per se of the Haqqanis is not inimical to American interests — which it isn’t.

The Haqqanis seek to dominate Khost, Paktia and Paktika. They have no national ambitions. As luck would have it, the geography of those provinces is such that fencing them in is a very real possibility. If the Haqqanis still try and sneak out and hit Kabul — a red line for the Americans — they could be whacked.

So why obsess over the Haqqani safe havens in Pakistan?

The answer to the Haqqani-NWA fixation seems to have much to do with the dysfunctionality in the theory and practice of the war in Afghanistan.

The boys with the toys on the American side — the military and intelligence folks — sold the theory that the North Waziristan safe havens were the main problem in containing the Haqqanis, and that has been internalised across the American policymaking spectrum.

The army here knows this. It knows the American obsession is misplaced and that an alternative exists. So the core of the American demands against the Haqqanis in NWA is likely to be rebuffed.

That settles one of the two North Waziristans.

Turn to Pakistan. When the fight to recover Fata from the clutches of the Pakistan-centric militants began, it was always known that the Waziristan agencies would be the final battle for control of territory. The Waziristan agencies, for reasons of ancient tribal and more recent jihad history, present a challenge unlike any other agency or settled district.

Overall, the approach to recovering Fata has been fairly consistent: ensure adequate military resources are available for the fight; move to deny the militants physical space; and then consolidate the war gains by rehabilitating local security forces and the political administration.

That eventually the Pakistan-centric militants in NWA would have to be taken on was always known. That the army has understood and accepted this — as opposed to trying to bring rogue militants back into the pet jihadist fold — is also largely true.

Inside the army, the question is less if the Mir Ali version of North Waziristan should be taken on at all and more about when and to what extent.

Operationally, until central Kurram and Orakzai are consolidated, the Pakistan-centric in NWA militants will have another place to escape to — defeating the strategy of incrementally denying the militants physical space.

Additionally, for all the troops already stationed in NWA, they’re busy with defensive duties, meaning offensive forces will have to be drafted in. That means freeing up military resources elsewhere first.

If all of that sounds straightforward enough — just a matter of getting the timing and resources right — that’s precisely the message the army wants to put across.

Easy to guess, though, that isn’t the full story.

Officially, the hesitancy of the army is in the final reckoning linked to blowback: how to prevent escalating attacks inside Pakistan proper and on security targets when the army goes after the Pakistan-centric militants in NWA.

The threat of unmanageable blowback is real enough to count as a genuine reason for hesitancy.

But what the army won’t admit is another concern: the army’s self-created and self-perpetuated image inside Pakistan as the only viable institution.

If the blowback from an operation in NWA is fierce enough, the Pakistani public may begin to question whether the army is all that it’s made itself out to be, whether generals more interested in DHA plots and commercial interests have lost the security plot.

When everything else is in place — the right environment, the operational capacity, everything — the unmentioned fear may determine what will happen in North Waziristan.

Will the army risk its reputation in NWA to fight a battle it militarily knows it must fight but which could have unmanageable political repercussions for the army inside Pakistan proper?

On that question, more than anything else, may rest the answer to what happens in the other North Waziristan.

 

[airmarshal]

The U.S. never got oil or anything else from Iran in the first place, so we CAN'T lose what never was. China is a repressive regime who's true colors will ALWAYS show through. It cracks me up when I see people touting the 'goodness' of countries like Russia and China.

But back on topic to the Haqannis. Why can't (or won't, more precisely) Pakistan take care of these guys ?

At this moment, Pakistan's priority seems to be to defeat TTP. It has succeeded but there is still some way to go. I think Pakistan does not want to open two fronts at the same time. The blowback will be severe in that case.

There are also isssues with the way US presence in the region is percieved. More and more people seem to be convinced that US objectives are more than this WOT. IT wants to stay in the region and is consolidating its position.

In this scenario, public support for operation against Haqqanis is very little as they are perceived to be an opposition to occupation.

But we cant bet on these groups for a long time. While the Mujahideen did a tremendous job (of course with US and Pakistan help) in driving out the Soviets, those groups were involved in most reprehensible acts of blood letting that even Soviets could not match!

 

[Screambowl]

the basic and the biggest blunder in Pakistan's constitution and history was granting seat to a dual citizenship person in the assembly. How many of them were CIA or MI agents no idea. Pakistan could stand like Iran but no more.

 

[AliMentosMoziilla]

Sure. It's called 9/11. If the ISI's buddies the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden the U.S. wouldn't be 8000 miles from home in Afghanistan.

US created the taliban not pakistan.

 

[asq]

Getting Pakistan to act against Haqqani is something that US has not been very successful in getting done. I am not very positive about things being changing in future.

Haqanis are Afghan citizens living on Afghan side of the border, why than you want Pakistan to get involved in the affairs that Afghanistan should take care of.